But the monks etc... all start with a premise that they are absolutely not going to change then spend a lot of time defending that premise without allowing any empirical facts sway them. They will write whole books on theology, but no actual, real, empirical evidence can change their minds. They are thinking, but they are not doing science.
Science is not the correct tool to explore many moral topics. It may give insight into why certain moral beliefs make for more successful societies. But plain common sense makes all the many tomes explaining why god exists in the face of the "question of evil" unconvincing.
We don't have a special word for people who don't believe in invisible purple unicorns. No one accuses people who do not believe in purple invisible unicorns of having an important belief. Same thing with atheists. Not believing in your particular unsupported suppositions doesn't make my non-belief in God any more special than my non-belief in the Easter bunny.
Science can't prove anything doesn't exist, much less God. But common sense makes the "question of evil" very difficult for the faithful to answer. I have never got a rational answer to the question of evil from a person of faith.
There are things science cannot address fully such as morality and ethics, but faith is not the answer. Faith means believing something regardless of any evidence for or against it. While science may not be the best tool to explore morality, philosophy, without any faith or religion, is a good tool.
The bible is a large book that contradicts itself in many places. How do most people choose which parts to follow and which to ignore? They use modern liberal humanist secular principals that arose during the enlightenment. That is why "do unto others as you would have done to yourself" is thought to be good, but selling your daughters into slavery not good. Yes, it is OK to sell your daughters into slavery as long as you follow a few simple rules according to the old testament.
If your creed has such large glaring "holes" in it why do still subscribe to any of it? What is that religion gives you that science and philosophy cannot give you? Science covers the empirical world, and philosophy covers morality and ethics.
Water is not a green house gas, water vapour is. They are planning on pumping small water droplets into the air, not water vapour. Visible clouds consists of small drops of liquid water suspended in the air. Water vapour is pretty much transparent.
What? Providing for my kids and sending them to school is the same as slavery? Just in case you did not notice, most slaves were not sent to school during the day, but to work. School benefits the child, not the parent.
Slavery is a horrible institution that is rightfully banned. It irks me when people compare working for wages or going to school to slavery.
... who believe that religion and creationism can coexist.
I'm pretty sure the problem is certain religions and evolution, not religion and creationism.
Anyone who denies that evolution is a fact has to willfully ignore mountains of diverse evidence. The Theory of Evolution is our current best explanation of the fact of evolution, just like the Theory of Gravity is or best explanation of the fact that masses attract each other.
I'm pretty sure he won that last election which generally means most people support him. And ost people support or are neutral about his policies. Being loud doesn't make you more numerous.
As the article states, the lame excuse given is that the survey question forced people to choose between their religious beliefs and science.
Seeing as the survey was meant to measure science literacy in the USA the section should have been kept as it clearly shows an issue with some people trumping science with religion. This is disturbing as it can cause big problems when you make decisions base don how you wish the world is and not how it actually is.
No you don't enjoy smoking, that is a common rationalization. What you enjoy is making the withdraw symptoms abate for a while until your next smoke. No one likes their first smoke. IT tastes bad, and likely makes you cough. Most smokers start young because they think it is cool or grown up. It is very addictive, and you continue because you are addicted.
Non-smokers feel as good as you do after a smoke all the time because they are not suffering from nicotine withdraw.
I don't think anyone who thinks that global warming is real is against discussing rationally what should be done, if anything at all, about it. Personally, cutting back on energy use saves me money, so I'm all for research on high efficiency cars, lights, motors, etc...
It is a common side effect of laser eye surgery, and likely has nothing to do with getting older. The most common problems are dry-eye, reduced contrast, and glare issues. These are generally mild enough to not be noticed except in low light conditions like driving at night.
So you are saying Fox news should be shut down because they "oppose" Obama?
There is nothing wrong with pro or anti governemnt media outlets. There is only a problem when the government uses its power to silence the opposition.
An oil change is not a tune up. A traditional tuneup was changing the plugs, adjusting the points, checking/adjusting the timing, and making sure the carb wasn't too bad out of adjustment.
Cars don't have points now, there is no carb to adjust, and the plugs can go for 100k before needing changed.
Oil changes are very important to do regularly, and you should get the brakes inspected regularly. There is other routine maintenance you should do, but it still isn't a "tune up" in the traditional sense of the phrase.
Wrong. Cars have become MUCH more reliable over the years. Lots can go wrong with mechanical systems. A spring breaks, a rod binds, whatever. A friend had a car break the throttle return spring on a old muscle car and it took off like a rocket, hit a k-rail, ripped off both front wheels, went airborne and landed on a nice Cadillac.
Know what a tune-up is? You used to have to do one at least once a year to keep your car going. Not really done anymore.
I could go on like this for quite a while. I like working on old cars because they are simple. But the new cars are more reliable.
While the government of Canada is by no means perfect, it does manage to deliver universal healthcare for much less than the private sector in th USA does. There are no insurance corps skimming profit from every transaction. The government actually uses it bulk buying power to lower costs. As pretty much everything is covered there isn't much paper work, and due to the loser pays court system, not as many lawsuits.
There can be longer waits for elective surgery, and associated tests. If something is life threatening you get treatment right away.
The government does not pick your doctor. You do. The government does not pick your treatment, nor does your insurance company. Your doctor chooses your treatment. you can't be denied coverage due to a "pre-existing condition".
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing this article, and many of the responses are from the USA, the last developed western country without universal healthcare, and labour laws out of the 19th century.
I stay at my job with large soulless corp due to the fair pay and excellent benefits - not fear of lacking health care.
You can't ban magical thinking. Trying to ban it would be just as bad as any other dogma being forced down peoples throats. Education and persuasion is the only answer. Only when violence is used against you is it moral to use violence to defend yourself. Trying to ban magical thinking would be a gross infringement of human rights.
I'm against magical thinking, but much more against taking someones right to free speech and free thought.
Many, many religious teachings boil down to: this life sucks, but the next is great. That is, this life is barely worth living and only death leads to paradise. That isn't a death cult?
Atheists believe there is no afterlife and make the best of the only life they know for sure they will get to enjoy. Atheists celebrate this life, not a very unlikely afterlife.
I'm quite certain many religious fanatics are entirely sincere. I do not think that sincerity makes their beliefs any more compelling.
It isn't a lack of sincerity that is troubling, it is the willingness to ignore all facts that contradict their beliefs. An worse yet, the belief that it is ok to use force and violence against those who do not share their beliefs.
"Magical thinking" is believing in things with zero evidence, continuing to believe things in the face of overwhelming evidence, and a general lack of any sort of critical or logical thought process.
Magical Thinking values authority over evidence.
Yes, Magical Thinking is an insult. If I say you are engaging in magical thinking I am saying you are being willfully blind to the way the world IS, in favour of seeing the world as you want it.
Slashdot Mirror
But the monks etc... all start with a premise that they are absolutely not going to change then spend a lot of time defending that premise without allowing any empirical facts sway them. They will write whole books on theology, but no actual, real, empirical evidence can change their minds. They are thinking, but they are not doing science.
Science is not the correct tool to explore many moral topics. It may give insight into why certain moral beliefs make for more successful societies. But plain common sense makes all the many tomes explaining why god exists in the face of the "question of evil" unconvincing.
We don't have a special word for people who don't believe in invisible purple unicorns. No one accuses people who do not believe in purple invisible unicorns of having an important belief. Same thing with atheists. Not believing in your particular unsupported suppositions doesn't make my non-belief in God any more special than my non-belief in the Easter bunny.
Science can't prove anything doesn't exist, much less God. But common sense makes the "question of evil" very difficult for the faithful to answer. I have never got a rational answer to the question of evil from a person of faith.
There are things science cannot address fully such as morality and ethics, but faith is not the answer. Faith means believing something regardless of any evidence for or against it. While science may not be the best tool to explore morality, philosophy, without any faith or religion, is a good tool.
The bible is a large book that contradicts itself in many places. How do most people choose which parts to follow and which to ignore? They use modern liberal humanist secular principals that arose during the enlightenment. That is why "do unto others as you would have done to yourself" is thought to be good, but selling your daughters into slavery not good. Yes, it is OK to sell your daughters into slavery as long as you follow a few simple rules according to the old testament.
Faith just allows you to stop thinking.
If your creed has such large glaring "holes" in it why do still subscribe to any of it? What is that religion gives you that science and philosophy cannot give you? Science covers the empirical world, and philosophy covers morality and ethics.
Water is not a green house gas, water vapour is. They are planning on pumping small water droplets into the air, not water vapour. Visible clouds consists of small drops of liquid water suspended in the air. Water vapour is pretty much transparent.
What? Providing for my kids and sending them to school is the same as slavery? Just in case you did not notice, most slaves were not sent to school during the day, but to work. School benefits the child, not the parent.
Slavery is a horrible institution that is rightfully banned. It irks me when people compare working for wages or going to school to slavery.
I'm pretty sure the problem is certain religions and evolution, not religion and creationism.
Anyone who denies that evolution is a fact has to willfully ignore mountains of diverse evidence. The Theory of Evolution is our current best explanation of the fact of evolution, just like the Theory of Gravity is or best explanation of the fact that masses attract each other.
I'm pretty sure he won that last election which generally means most people support him. And ost people support or are neutral about his policies. Being loud doesn't make you more numerous.
RTFA
As the article states, the lame excuse given is that the survey question forced people to choose between their religious beliefs and science.
Seeing as the survey was meant to measure science literacy in the USA the section should have been kept as it clearly shows an issue with some people trumping science with religion. This is disturbing as it can cause big problems when you make decisions base don how you wish the world is and not how it actually is.
I would consider walking ten feet to get something that has a 1 in 3 chance of killing me a sure sign of addiction.
I'll believe that if you quit cold turkey today.
No you don't enjoy smoking, that is a common rationalization. What you enjoy is making the withdraw symptoms abate for a while until your next smoke. No one likes their first smoke. IT tastes bad, and likely makes you cough. Most smokers start young because they think it is cool or grown up. It is very addictive, and you continue because you are addicted.
Non-smokers feel as good as you do after a smoke all the time because they are not suffering from nicotine withdraw.
I don't think anyone who thinks that global warming is real is against discussing rationally what should be done, if anything at all, about it. Personally, cutting back on energy use saves me money, so I'm all for research on high efficiency cars, lights, motors, etc...
It is a common side effect of laser eye surgery, and likely has nothing to do with getting older. The most common problems are dry-eye, reduced contrast, and glare issues. These are generally mild enough to not be noticed except in low light conditions like driving at night.
So you are saying Fox news should be shut down because they "oppose" Obama?
There is nothing wrong with pro or anti governemnt media outlets. There is only a problem when the government uses its power to silence the opposition.
Asking if professional astronomers took the red shift into account is like asking if some surgeons washed before performing surgery.
Rare, meaning one every hundred years or so.
An oil change is not a tune up. A traditional tuneup was changing the plugs, adjusting the points, checking/adjusting the timing, and making sure the carb wasn't too bad out of adjustment.
Cars don't have points now, there is no carb to adjust, and the plugs can go for 100k before needing changed.
Oil changes are very important to do regularly, and you should get the brakes inspected regularly. There is other routine maintenance you should do, but it still isn't a "tune up" in the traditional sense of the phrase.
Wrong. Cars have become MUCH more reliable over the years. Lots can go wrong with mechanical systems. A spring breaks, a rod binds, whatever. A friend had a car break the throttle return spring on a old muscle car and it took off like a rocket, hit a k-rail, ripped off both front wheels, went airborne and landed on a nice Cadillac.
Know what a tune-up is? You used to have to do one at least once a year to keep your car going. Not really done anymore.
I could go on like this for quite a while. I like working on old cars because they are simple. But the new cars are more reliable.
While the government of Canada is by no means perfect, it does manage to deliver universal healthcare for much less than the private sector in th USA does. There are no insurance corps skimming profit from every transaction. The government actually uses it bulk buying power to lower costs. As pretty much everything is covered there isn't much paper work, and due to the loser pays court system, not as many lawsuits.
There can be longer waits for elective surgery, and associated tests. If something is life threatening you get treatment right away.
The government does not pick your doctor. You do. The government does not pick your treatment, nor does your insurance company. Your doctor chooses your treatment. you can't be denied coverage due to a "pre-existing condition".
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing this article, and many of the responses are from the USA, the last developed western country without universal healthcare, and labour laws out of the 19th century.
I stay at my job with large soulless corp due to the fair pay and excellent benefits - not fear of lacking health care.
You can't ban magical thinking. Trying to ban it would be just as bad as any other dogma being forced down peoples throats. Education and persuasion is the only answer. Only when violence is used against you is it moral to use violence to defend yourself. Trying to ban magical thinking would be a gross infringement of human rights.
I'm against magical thinking, but much more against taking someones right to free speech and free thought.
Many, many religious teachings boil down to: this life sucks, but the next is great. That is, this life is barely worth living and only death leads to paradise. That isn't a death cult?
Atheists believe there is no afterlife and make the best of the only life they know for sure they will get to enjoy. Atheists celebrate this life, not a very unlikely afterlife.
I'm quite certain many religious fanatics are entirely sincere. I do not think that sincerity makes their beliefs any more compelling.
It isn't a lack of sincerity that is troubling, it is the willingness to ignore all facts that contradict their beliefs. An worse yet, the belief that it is ok to use force and violence against those who do not share their beliefs.
"Magical thinking" is believing in things with zero evidence, continuing to believe things in the face of overwhelming evidence, and a general lack of any sort of critical or logical thought process.
Magical Thinking values authority over evidence.
Yes, Magical Thinking is an insult. If I say you are engaging in magical thinking I am saying you are being willfully blind to the way the world IS, in favour of seeing the world as you want it.